[Tripper]

Originally Posted by 1080jibber

The current administration would disagree
edit: your either with them, or with the terrorists
edit2: they are killing America

Yeah, when a government has that kind of attitude all it does is force a division. That's why you have liberals/democrats and conservatives/republicans at each others throats on every issue.

[ninty]

Absolutley.

It's sad to see the division between people with just a few differences. Republicans and democrats are basically the same.

Not only is the administration helping the division, but the media feeds on the democrat vs republican ideal. Just watch cnn or fox for 30 seconds.

[Coleman]

[quote="Mr.Buttocks":cd89c][url=http://citypages.com/databank/24/1182/article11417.asp:cd89c]Link to article...[/url:cd89c]

[quote:cd89c]
The Bush administration's Top 40 Lies about war and terrorism


5) Iraq's WMDs were sent to Syria for hiding.

Or Iran, or.... "They shipped them out!" was a rallying cry for the administration in the first few nervous weeks of finding no WMDs, but not a bit of supporting evidence has emerged.

I personaly believe things were moved around and such. The whole UN inspections were a joke. Iraq blatantly disregarded the UN with inspection and were told about consequences. I think the UN is nothing but a bunch of 8 year old kids that made a tree house club. These days it's a joke. It does alot of great things though, yes.

6) The CIA was primarily responsible for any prewar intelligence errors or distortions regarding Iraq.

Don't be misled by the news that CIA director George Tenet has taken the fall for Bush's falsehoods in the State of the Uranium address. As the journalist Robert Dreyfuss wrote shortly before the war, "Even as it prepares for war against Iraq, the Pentagon is already engaged on a second front: its war against the Central Intelligence Agency. The Pentagon is bringing relentless pressure to bear on the agency to produce intelligence reports more supportive of war with Iraq. ... Morale inside the U.S. national-security apparatus is said to be low, with career staffers feeling intimidated and pressured to justify the push for war."

In short, Tenet fell on his sword when he vetted Bush's State of the Union yarns. And now he has had to get up and fall on it again.

No one ever says anything about the Clinton Administration. It's like all of the "slacking off" and "crappy intelligence" just happened the first day Bush's cabinet moved into the White House.



9) The U.S. wants democracy in Iraq and the Middle East.

Democracy is the last thing the U.S. can afford in Iraq, as anyone who has paid attention to the state of Arab popular sentiment already realizes. Representative government in Iraq would mean the rapid expulsion of U.S. interests. Rather, the U.S. wants westernized, secular leadership regimes that will stay in pocket and work to neutralize the politically ambitious anti-Western religious sects popping up everywhere. If a little brutality and graft are required to do the job, it has never troubled the U.S. in the past. Ironically, these standards describe someone more or less like Saddam Hussein. Judging from the state of civil affairs in Iraq now, the Bush administration will no doubt be looking for a strongman again, if and when they are finally compelled to install anyone at all.



10) Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress are a homegrown Iraqi political force, not a U.S.-sponsored front.

Chalabi is a more important bit player in the Iraq war than most people realize, and not because he was the U.S.'s failed choice to lead a post-Saddam government. It was Chalabi and his INC that funneled compliant defectors to the Bush administration, where they attested to everything the Bushmen wanted to believe about Saddam and Iraq (meaning, mainly, al Qaeda connections and WMD programs). The administration proceeded to take their dubious word over that of the combined intelligence of the CIA and DIA, which indicated that Saddam was not in the business of sponsoring foreign terrorism and posed no imminent threat to anyone.

Naturally Chalabi is despised nowadays round the halls of Langley, but it wasn't always so. The CIA built the Iraqi National Congress and installed Chalabi at the helm back in the days following Gulf War I, when the thought was to topple Saddam by whipping up and sponsoring an internal opposition. It didn't work; from the start Iraqis have disliked and distrusted Chalabi. Moreover, his erratic and duplicitous ways have alienated practically everyone in the U.S. foreign policy establishment as well--except for Rumsfeld's Department of Defense, and therefore the White House.

uh wtf?


11) The United States is waging a war on terror.

Practically any school child could recite the terms of the Bush Doctrine, and may have to before the Ashcroft Justice Department is finished: The global war on terror is about confronting terrorist groups and the nations that harbor them. The United States does not make deals with terrorists or nations where they find safe lodging.

Leave aside the blind eye that the U.S. has always cast toward Israel's actions in the territories. How are the Bushmen doing elsewhere vis-Ã*-vis their announced principles? We can start with their fabrications and manipulations of Iraqi WMD evidence--which, in the eyes of weapons inspectors, the UN Security Council, American intelligence analysts, and the world at large, did not pose any imminent threat.
like I said before, I do think things were moved around.

The events of recent months have underscored a couple more gaping violations of W's cardinal anti-terror rules. In April the Pentagon made a cooperation pact with the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), an anti-Iranian terrorist group based in Iraq. Prior to the 1979 Iranian revolution, American intelligence blamed it for the death of several U.S. nationals in Iran.

Most glaring of all is the Bush administration's remarkable treatment of Saudi Arabia. Consider: Eleven of the nineteen September 11 hijackers were Saudis. The ruling House of Saud has longstanding and well-known ties to al Qaeda and other terrorist outfits, which it funds (read protection money) to keep them from making mischief at home. The May issue of Atlantic Monthly had a nice piece on the House of Saud that recounts these connections.

Yet the Bush government has never said boo regarding the Saudis and international terrorism. In fact, when terror bombers struck Riyadh in May, hitting compounds that housed American workers as well, Colin Powell went out of his way to avoid tarring the House of Saud: "Terrorism strikes everywhere and everyone. It is a threat to the civilized world. We will commit ourselves again to redouble our efforts to work closely with our Saudi friends and friends all around the world to go after al Qaeda." Later it was alleged that the Riyadh bombers purchased some of their ordnance from the Saudi National Guard, but neither Powell nor anyone else saw fit to revise their statements about "our Saudi friends."

Why do the Bushmen give a pass to the Saudi terror hotbed? Because the House of Saud controls a lot of oil, and they are still (however tenuously) on our side. And that, not terrorism, is what matters most in Bush's foreign policy calculus.

Why do they always use the word oil in everything that is associated with the Middle East? OK, let's make the extreme left criticizers happy by parachuting into Saudi Arabia and shoot some shit up. That's like taking an automatic gun and shooting at 1,000 hornet nests in a warehouse. It is the center of Islamic faith. I do honestly think that is like jumping into Berlin before the Normandy Invasion.
While the bomb craters in Riyadh were still smoking, W held a meeting with Philippine president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Speaking publicly afterward, he outlined a deal for U.S. military aid to the Philippines in exchange for greater "cooperation" in getting American hands round the throats of Filipino terrorists. He mentioned in particular the U.S.'s longtime nemesis Abu Sayyaf--and he also singled out the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, a small faction based on Mindanao, the southernmost big island in the Philippine chain.

Of course it's by purest coincidence that Mindanao is the location of Asia's richest oil reserves.



12) The U.S. has made progress against world terrorist elements, in particular by crippling al Qaeda.

A resurgent al Qaeda has been making international news since around the time of the Saudi Arabia bombings in May. The best coverage by far is that of Asia Times correspondent Syed Saleem Shahzad. According to Shahzad's detailed accounts, al Qaeda has reorganized itself along leaner, more diffuse lines, effectively dissolving itself into a coalition of localized units that mean to strike frequently, on a small scale, and in multiple locales around the world. Since claiming responsibility for the May Riyadh bombings, alleged al Qaeda communiqués have also claimed credit for some of the strikes at U.S. troops in Iraq.

Wait, didn't the BBC say that there was no such thing as al Qaeda?

13) The Bush administration has made Americans safer from terror on U.S. soil.

Like the Pentagon "plan" for occupying postwar Iraq, the Department of Homeland Security is mainly a Bush administration PR dirigible untethered to anything of substance. It's a scandal waiting to happen, and the only good news for W is that it's near the back of a fairly long line of scandals waiting to happen.

On May 26 the trade magazine Federal Computer Week published a report on DHS's first 100 days. At that point the nerve center of Bush's domestic war on terror had only recently gotten e-mail service. As for the larger matter of creating a functioning organizational grid and, more important, a software architecture plan for integrating the enormous mass of data that DHS is supposed to process--nada. In the nearly two years since the administration announced its intention to create a cabinet-level homeland security office, nothing meaningful has been accomplished. And there are no funds to implement a network plan if they had one. According to the magazine, "Robert David Steele, an author and former intelligence officer, points out that there are at least 30 separate intelligence systems [theoretically feeding into DHS] and no money to connect them to one another or make them interoperable. 'There is nothing in the president's homeland security program that makes America safer,' he said."
I don't think we're safer in the world eye, no. That'd be kinda rediculous to think at the moment. But I do think we've made some progress in doing what we can in the current situation.




17) The U.S. has made a good-faith effort at peacekeeping in Iraq during the postwar period.

"Some [looters] shot big grins at American soldiers and Marines or put down their prizes to offer a thumbs-up or a quick finger across the throat and a whispered word--Saddam--before grabbing their loot and vanishing."

--Robert Fisk, London Independent, 4/11/03

Despite the many clashes between U.S. troops and Iraqis in the three months since the heavy artillery fell silent, the postwar performance of U.S. forces has been more remarkable for the things they have not done--their failure to intervene in civil chaos or to begin reestablishing basic civil procedures. It isn't the soldiers' fault. Traditionally an occupation force is headed up by military police units schooled to interact with the natives and oversee the restoration of goods and services. But Rumsfeld has repeatedly declined advice to rotate out the combat troops sooner rather than later and replace some of them with an MP force. Lately this has been a source of escalating criticism within military ranks.
It's kinda hard to interact with the natives when they're blowing themselves up in food lines. We can all agree, however, that the sooner more power is given to the Iraqi police/military units the better it is for out troops. It might help too since they will understand more cultural boundaries that can't necessarily be taught in a classroom 2 weeks before shipping out to Iraq


18) Despite vocal international opposition, the U.S. was backed by most of the world, as evidenced by the 40-plus-member Coalition of the Willing.

When the whole world opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the outcry was so loud that it briefly pierced the slumber of the American public, which poured out its angst in poll numbers that bespoke little taste for a war without the UN's blessing. So it became necessary to assure the folks at home that the whole world was in fact for the invasion. Thus was born the Coalition of the Willing, consisting of the U.S. and UK, with Australia caddying--and 40-some additional co-champions of U.S.-style democracy in the Middle East, whose ranks included such titans of diplomacy and pillars of representative government as Angola, Azerbaijan, Colombia, Eritrea, and Micronesia. If the American public noticed the ruse, all was nonetheless forgotten when Baghdad fell. Everybody loves a winner.
Fuck ze French.


19) This war was notable for its protection of civilians.

This from the Herald of Scotland, May 23: "American guns, bombs, and missiles killed more civilians in the recent war in Iraq than in any conflict since Vietnam, according to preliminary assessments carried out by the UN, international aid agencies, and independent study groups. Despite U.S. boasts this was the fastest, most clinical campaign in military history, a first snapshot of 'collateral damage' indicates that between 5,000 and 10,000 Iraqi non-combatants died in the course of the hi-tech blitzkrieg."
What do you expect when much of the fighting is during the work commuting hours? They're not fighting in jungles with small tribes around. They're fighting in streets. Hell, even the insurgents are killing a large number of civilians (probably in a ratio--> civilians:US 15:1 total guess thoug).



22) Saddam was capable of launching a chemical or biological attack in 45 minutes.

Again the WashPost wraps it up nicely: "The 45-minute claim is at the center of a scandal in Britain that led to the apparent suicide on Friday of a British weapons scientist who had questioned the government's use of the allegation. The scientist, David Kelly, was being investigated by the British parliament as the suspected source of a BBC report that the 45-minute claim was added to Britain's public 'dossier' on Iraq in September at the insistence of an aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair--and against the wishes of British intelligence, which said the charge was from a single source and was considered unreliable."
I don't think I'd want to wait to find out



24) People detained by the U.S. after 9/11 were legitimate terror suspects.

Quite the contrary, as disclosed officially in last month's critical report on U.S. detainees from the Justice Department's own Office of Inspector General. A summary analysis of post-9/11 detentions posted at the UC-Davis website states, "None of the 1,200 foreigners arrested and detained in secret after September 11 was charged with an act of terrorism. Instead, after periods of detention that ranged from weeks to months, most were deported for violating immigration laws. The government said that 752 of 1,200 foreigners arrested after September 11 were in custody in May 2002, but only 81 were still in custody in September 2002."
Key word SUSPECTS. We don't have to convict all of them to say that we were real smart and got what we were looking for O_o


25) The U.S. is obeying the Geneva conventions in its treatment of terror-related suspects, prisoners, and detainees.

The entire mumbo-jumbo about "unlawful combatants" was conceived to skirt the Geneva conventions on treatment of prisoners by making them out to be something other than POWs. Here is the actual wording of Donald Rumsfeld's pledge, freighted with enough qualifiers to make it absolutely meaningless: "We have indicated that we do plan to, for the most part, treat them in a manner that is reasonably consistent with the Geneva conventions to the extent they are appropriate." Meanwhile the administration has treated its prisoners--many of whom, as we are now seeing confirmed in legal hearings, have no plausible connection to terrorist enterprises--in a manner that blatantly violates several key Geneva provisions regarding humane treatment and housing.
If making them stand for 36hours at a time and letting them piss in their pants helps save our troops lives, then so be it. I haven't heard of any Chinese Water Torture techniques or having bamboo shoots growing into the flesh of detainees...


26) Shots rang out from the Palestine hotel, directed at U.S. soldiers, just before a U.S. tank fired on the hotel, killing two journalists.

Eyewitnesses to the April 8 attack uniformly denied any gunfire from the hotel. And just two hours prior to firing on the hotel, U.S. forces had bombed the Baghdad offices of Al-Jazeera, killing a Jordanian reporter. Taken together, and considering the timing, they were deemed a warning to unembedded journalists covering the fall of Baghdad around them. The day's events seem to have been an extreme instance of a more surreptitious pattern of hostility demonstrated by U.S. and UK forces toward foreign journalists and those non-attached Western reporters who moved around the country at will. (One of them, Terry Lloyd of Britain's ITN, was shot to death by UK troops at a checkpoint in late March under circumstances the British government has refused to disclose.)

Some days after firing on the Palestine Hotel, the U.S. sent in a commando unit to raid select floors of the hotel that were known to be occupied by journalists, and the news gatherers were held on the floor at gunpoint while their rooms were searched. A Centcom spokesman later explained cryptically that intelligence reports suggested there were people "not friendly to the U.S." staying at the hotel. Allied forces also bombed the headquarters of Abu Dhabi TV, injuring several.
The media tries to find intentional faults in everything...left wing and right wing. Of course, they'll try to criticize the US for their hostile actions and mistakes. Shit happens, but there is no reason for these things just to pass like it's nothing. Learn from your mistakes and deal with it.


27) U.S. troops "rescued" Private Jessica Lynch from an Iraqi hospital.

If I had wanted to run up the tally of administration lies, the Lynch episode alone could be parsed into several more. Officials claimed that Lynch and her comrades were taken after a firefight in which Lynch battled back bravely. Later they announced with great fanfare that U.S. Special Forces had rescued Lynch from her captors. They reported that she had been shot and stabbed. Later yet, they reported that the recuperating Lynch had no memory of the events.

Bit by bit it all proved false. Lynch's injuries occurred when the vehicle she was riding in crashed. She did not fire on anybody and she was not shot or stabbed. The Iraqi soldiers who had been holding her had abandoned the hospital where she was staying the night before U.S. troops came to get her--a development her "rescuers" were aware of. In fact her doctor had tried to return her to the Americans the previous evening after the Iraqi soldiers left. But he was forced to turn back when U.S. troops fired on the approaching ambulance. As for Lynch's amnesia, her family has told reporters her memory is perfectly fine.
I don't know much about this topic to be honest. It seems, from this source, to be something like a Vassili story...to boost moral and such. I dunno.


28) The populace of Baghdad and of Iraq generally turned out en masse to greet U.S. troops as liberators.

There were indeed scattered expressions of thanks when U.S. divisions rolled in, but they were neither as extensive nor as enthusiastic as Bush image-makers pretended. Within a day or two of the Saddam government's fall, the scene in the Baghdad streets turned to wholesale ransacking and vandalism. Within the week, large-scale protests of the U.S. occupation had already begun occurring in every major Iraqi city.
Fuck 'em if they don't want us. Let's line their familes up on trenches and shoot them like Saddam's people. Maybe they'll like us better then.


29) A spontaneous crowd of cheering Iraqis showed up in a Baghdad square to celebrate the toppling of Saddam's statue.

A long-distance shot of the same scene that was widely posted on the internet shows that the teeming mob consisted of only one or two hundred souls, contrary to the impression given by all the close-up TV news shots of what appeared to be a massive gathering. It was later reported that members of Ahmed Chalabi's local entourage made up most of the throng.
I don't see what the huge deal about this is in the immediate sense. Those people were happy good for them. I sure as hell didn't believe "the whole country was dancing in the streets smacking their shoes on saddam's statue".



31) The U.S. achieved its stated objectives in Afghanistan, and vanquished the Taliban.

According to accounts in the Asia Times of Hong Kong, the U.S. held a secret meeting earlier this year with Taliban leaders and Pakistani intelligence officials to offer a deal to the Taliban for inclusion in the Afghan government. (Main condition: Dump Mullah Omar.) As Michael Tomasky commented in The American Prospect, "The first thing you may be wondering: Why is there a possible role for the Taliban in a future government? Isn't that fellow Hamid Karzai running things, and isn't it all going basically okay? As it turns out, not really and not at all.... The reality... is an escalating guerilla war in which 'small hit-and-run attacks are a daily feature in most parts of the country, while face-to-face skirmishes are common in the former Taliban stronghold around Kandahar in the south.'"
Let's see those taliban dudes in the streets with whips running things and then I'll see if I think the US Gov't wants to help the Taliban..


33) The looting of Iraqi nuclear facilities presented no big risk to the population.

Commanders on the scene, and Rumsfeld back in Washington, immediately assured everyone that the looting of a facility where raw uranium powder (so-called "yellowcake") and several other radioactive isotopes were stored was no serious danger to the populace--yet the looting of the facility came to light in part because, as the Washington Times noted, "U.S. and British newspaper reports have suggested that residents of the area were suffering from severe ill health after tipping out yellowcake powder from barrels and using them to store food."
Storing food in barrels that contained chemicals is always great. They act as food preservatives.


34) U.S. troops were under attack when they fired upon a crowd of civilian protesters in Mosul.

April 15: U.S. troops fire into a crowd of protesters when it grows angry at the pro-Western speech being given by the town's new mayor, Mashaan al-Juburi. Seven are killed and dozens injured. Eyewitness accounts say the soldiers spirit Juburi away as he is pelted with objects by the crowd, then take sniper positions and begin firing on the crowd.
One gunshot can trigger a whole firefight. I never heard about this incident, but I'm sure it's nothing like the Boston Massacre.


35) U.S. troops were under attack when they fired upon two separate crowds of civilian protesters in Fallujah.

April 28: American troops fire into a crowd of demonstrators gathered on Saddam's birthday, killing 13 and injuring 75. U.S. commanders claim the troops had come under fire, but eyewitnesses contradict the account, saying the troops started shooting after they were spooked by warning shots fired over the crowd by one of the Americans' own Humvees. Two days later U.S. soldiers fired on another crowd in Fallujah, killing three more.
[/color=red]same here.[/color]



37) The bidding process for Iraq rebuilding contracts displayed no favoritism toward Bush and Cheney's oil/gas cronies.

Most notoriously, Dick Cheney's former energy-sector employer, Halliburton, was all over the press dispatches about the first round of rebuilding contracts. So much so that they were eventually obliged to bow out of the running for a $1 billion reconstruction contract for the sake of their own PR profile. But Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown Root still received the first major plum in the form of a $7 billion contract to tend to oil field fires and (the real purpose) to do any retooling necessary to get the oil pumping at a decent rate, a deal that allows them a cool $500 million in profit. The fact that Dick Cheney's office is still fighting tooth and nail to block any disclosure of the individuals and companies with whom his energy task force consulted tells everything you need to know.
If you wanted a job done well wouldn't you want the best company to do it? You wouldn't want some little kid with a push lawn mower to do the job; you'd rather hire a professional landscaping company that will make it look right and clean with the rght tools. Halliburton was one of the best companies to do the business.


38) "We found the WMDs!"

There have been at least half a dozen junctures at which the Bushmen have breathlessly informed the press that allied troops had found the WMD smoking gun, including the president himself, who on June 1 told reporters, "For those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."

Shouldn't these quickly falsified statements be counted as errors rather than lies? Under the circumstances, no. First, there is just too voluminous a record of the administration going on the media offensive to tout lines they know to be flimsy. This appears to be more of same. Second, if the great genius Karl Rove and the rest of the Bushmen have demonstrated that they understand anything about the propaganda potential of the historical moment they've inherited, they surely understand that repetition is everything. Get your message out regularly, and even if it's false a good many people will believe it.

Finally, we don't have to speculate about whether the administration would really plant bogus WMD evidence in the American media, because they have already done it, most visibly in the case of Judith Miller of the New York Times and the Iraqi defector "scientist" she wrote about at the military's behest on April 21. Miller did not even get to speak with the purported scientist, but she graciously passed on several things American commanders claimed he said: that Iraq only destroyed its chemical weapons days before the war, that WMD materiel had been shipped to Syria, and that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda. As Slate media critic Jack Shafer told WNYC Radio's On the Media program, "When you... look at [her story], you find that it's gas, it's air. There's no way to judge the value of her information, because it comes from an unnamed source that won't let her verify any aspect of it. And if you dig into the story... you'll find out that the only thing that Miller has independently observed is a man that the military says is the scientist, wearing a baseball cap, pointing at mounds in the dirt."
I never heard anything about this.


39) "The Iraqi people are now free."

So says the current U.S. administrator of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, in a recent New York Times op-ed. He failed to add that disagreeing can get you shot or arrested under the terms of the Pentagon's latest plan for pacifying Iraq, Operation Sidewinder (see #36), a military op launched last month to wipe out all remaining Ba'athists and Saddam partisans--meaning, in practice, anyone who resists the U.S. occupation too zealously.
NY Times...Hake: "too zealously" would probably mean parading down the street with guns firing in the air as they walk towards a military base. I do think the Iraqi people are free from oppression. They're not completely safe due to the nut jobs that blow themselves up every two seconds.


40) God told Bush to invade Iraq.

Not long after the September 11 attacks, neoconservative high priest Norman Podhoretz wrote: "One hears that Bush, who entered the White House without a clear sense of what he wanted to do there, now feels there was a purpose behind his election all along; as a born-again Christian, it is said, he believes he was chosen by God to eradicate the evil of terrorism from the world."

No, he really believes it, or so he would like us to think. The Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, told the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz that Bush made the following pronouncement during a recent meeting between the two: "God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East."

Oddly, it never got much play back home.
God told me to do alot of different things to. Doesn't mean that I'm going to shout to the world that he spoke to me. This was a mistake on Bush's part when he's fighting an Islamic group. Not one of the best things to do
[/quote:cd89c][/quote:cd89c]

[BeanerMan]

No one ever says anything about the Clinton Administration. It's like all of the "slacking off" and "crappy intelligence" just happened the first day Bush's cabinet moved into the White House.

Yeah blame Clinton. It was Clinton's fault. oOo: If I remember in 1993 when the first attacks occurred on the twin towers, Clinton was only in office for a couple of weeks. I did not hear anyone from the left blame Bush Sr. for the intelligence failure during the first attack. As a matter of fact, instead of spouting a lot of rhetoric, the individuals responsible for the attacks were caught and prosecuted and are currently under U.S. custody. Has the person responsible for the second twin towers attack been caught huh. Where the hell is Osama Bin Laden, the master mind behind the attacks. Instead this adminstration took the eye off the ball and diverted its attention towards another target that was of no threat to the United States. Please do not give me this rhetoric that the United States went into Iraq to liberate the poor Iraqi's. Bull, they did not ask to be liberated and the fact remains the objective of the invasion was to find the Wmd's which up until now have not been found. Other countries drastically need the help of the USA. Where is the USA where countries like Zimbabwe, Sudan, Haiti, and others really need the help and ask the help of America.

[rdeyes]

Originally Posted by Stammer

Dissent is patriotic.

go put your che t-shirt on you rebel you.

[BeanerMan]

Originally Posted by rdeyes

go put your che t-shirt on you rebel you.

Go suck Uncle Sam's nut sack and beleive blindly whatever the President says sheep.

[TGB!]

[quote:84ff1]1) The administration was not bent on war with Iraq from 9/11 onward.
[/quote:84ff1]

Shocking - that the Sec. of Defense would round up the usual suspects and want to know if one of the most oppresive regimes in the middle-east (among others) had anything to do with the towers falling. Just absolutely SHOCKING. Who the fuck are they going to look at - GREENLAND?

[quote:84ff1]Most notoriously, Dick Cheney's former energy-sector employer, Halliburton, was all over the press dispatches about the first round of rebuilding contracts. So much so that they were eventually obliged to bow out of the running for a $1 billion reconstruction contract for the sake of their own PR profile. But Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown Root still received the first major plum in the form of a $7 billion contract to tend to oil field fires and (the real purpose) to do any retooling necessary to get the oil pumping at a decent rate, a deal that allows them a cool $500 million in profit. The fact that Dick Cheney's office is still fighting tooth and nail to block any disclosure of the individuals and companies with whom his energy task force consulted tells everything you need to know.[/quote:84ff1]

The GAO - an agency that has ZERO reason to support the President audited EVERY contract awarded under Operation Iraqi Freedom - they found NO discrepancies that warranted any cronyism and any suggestion otherwise from the mewling left is NEVER backed up with facts other than "oh well its a GOVERNMENT agency - of course they didnt find anything". The myth of cronyism in contract awardings is the same myth that CHENEY will somehow someway profit from his former employ at HALLI - just more Blog-Bullshit oft-repeated and now fact.

[quote:84ff1]Paul Wolfowitz admitted to Vanity Fair that weapons of mass destruction were not really the main reason for invading Iraq: "The decision to highlight weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for going to war in Iraq was taken for bureaucratic reasons.... [T]here were many other important factors as well." Right. But they did not come under the heading of self-defense.]/quote]

Again - unsuprising that WMD's was highlighted for purely PR reasons - its the one that would resonate the most with the common man. The same shit has happened in EVERY war - from the CIVIL to IRAQ. . .you have to sell the war

[quote:84ff1]12) The U.S. has made progress against world terrorist elements, in particular by crippling al Qaeda. before you can go to Congress. Call it dirty pool - but its politics.[/quote:84ff1]

Only the most pessimistic anti-Bush-leaguer could look at the fracturing of AQ into smaller less cohesive pieces as somehow being a "failure". What was supposed to happen - we'd catch all these crooks in one fell swoop? This isnt ALIAS. Undoubtedly terror cells are popping up around the globe and certainly in response to AQ's asswhippings - but this was bound to happen and at BEST the ADMIN could be considered overconfident in being able to contain the threat. They are however more than willng to meet it - something the Clinton Admin. more than failed to do (how many chances did they have at UBL again? - seems like the count is now up to three).

[quote:84ff1]21) Saddam was planning to provide WMD to terrorist groups.[/quote:84ff1]

The VOLKER report proves otherwise. It should by now be common knowledge amongst the "learned" that SADDAM's grifting of the OFF program provided him the means to kick-start his weapons programs. Is it that hard of a leap of the imagination to presume that someday - maybe sooner than later - he would be in the position to arm and aid terrorists. Nevermind the fucks "payments" to the families of suicide-bombers.

[quote:84ff1]24) People detained by the U.S. after 9/11 were legitimate terror suspects.[/quote:84ff1]

"Suspects" - maybe the person who wrote this needs a dictionary. Suspect is just that - suspected terrorist. Many were let go. I dont know exactly what this "lie" is meant to prove/disprove.

[quote:84ff1]25) The U.S. is obeying the Geneva conventions in its treatment of terror-related suspects, prisoners, and detainees.[/quote:84ff1]

No idea the "point" this one is trying to prove.

[quote:84ff1]40) God told Bush to invade Iraq.[/quote:84ff1][/quote:84ff1]

And?

[c312]

Originally Posted by Tripper

So basically you have nothing to say so laughing it off is how you deal with it?

You shouldn't have unconditional support of your own government - It's dangerous. As a citizen of a free-nation you have the right to second-guess your own government - That's how you find the kinks to flatten out. It doesn't make you anti-american.

....I say this because it seems to me that you're in denial - Despite the facts being laid out in front of you.

I never said I unconditionally support anything. I'm laughing at them because some are ridiculous, not even worthy of being on the list; others are based more on opinion than anything else, and yet more based on facts that are skewed. Few of them are legitimate worries to me. And facts? There are very large accusations made with only a paragraph of support from only one side of the argument for each point.

[c312]

Originally Posted by BeanerMan

No one ever says anything about the Clinton Administration. It's like all of the "slacking off" and "crappy intelligence" just happened the first day Bush's cabinet moved into the White House.

Yeah blame Clinton. It was Clinton's fault. oOo: If I remember in 1993 when the first attacks occurred on the twin towers, Clinton was only in office for a couple of weeks. I did not hear anyone from the left blame Bush Sr. for the intelligence failure during the first attack. As a matter of fact, instead of spouting a lot of rhetoric, the individuals responsible for the attacks were caught and prosecuted and are currently under U.S. custody. Has the person responsible for the second twin towers attack been caught huh. Where the hell is Osama Bin Laden, the master mind behind the attacks. Instead this adminstration took the eye off the ball and diverted its attention towards another target that was of no threat to the United States. Please do not give me this rhetoric that the United States went into Iraq to liberate the poor Iraqi's. Bull, they did not ask to be liberated and the fact remains the objective of the invasion was to find the Wmd's which up until now have not been found. Other countries drastically need the help of the USA. Where is the USA where countries like Zimbabwe, Sudan, Haiti, and others really need the help and ask the help of America.

clinton may have only been in office for a few weeks when the first attack happened, but what did he do about it?

also, you make it seem as if it should be easy to find ONE person in the ENTIRE world.

of course they didn't ask to be liberated, they'd be killed under Saddam.

And yes, I think we should do more in Africa, but we need a president who will stick with it, not like Clinton who gave up in Somalia after 13 soldiers were killed in Mogadishu. If we want something to change there we need to have some sort of determination that Clinton's administration lacked.

[rdeyes]

Originally Posted by BeanerMan

Go suck Uncle Sam's nut sack and beleive blindly whatever the President says sheep.

just because i support our troops in iraq and afghanistan doesnt mean i follow the president like a "sheep".

[Tripper]

Originally Posted by c312

clinton may have only been in office for a few weeks when the first attack happened, but what did he do about it?

also, you make it seem as if it should be easy to find ONE person in the ENTIRE world.

of course they didn't ask to be liberated, they'd be killed under Saddam.

And yes, I think we should do more in Africa, but we need a president who will stick with it, not like Clinton who gave up in Somalia after 13 soldiers were killed in Mogadishu. If we want something to change there we need to have some sort of determination that Clinton's administration lacked.

War shouldn't come into play. It should never be used unless absolutely necessary, like I said before It's fucking stupid going to war with a country to save it. It rarely works.

If you're a rich country that wants to help out a nation, how about some peacekeeping in nations where there is more suffering and generally more people dieing....and instead of funding your military to fight the country, put money into rebuilding its government.

There are less bloody options for saving oppressed people of the world and in most cases considerably more important problems that need to be solved in other areas of the world....If that was the soul point of the war in Iraq. I personally can't make my mind up because I read valid points from each side. ....Although I still think that war was unnecessary.

...One thing I've never understood is... why Iraq? Why not a country like Somaliland - It isn't even recognised as a country, or Rwanda, or other nations in similar situations. It just seems to me like they are in more need of help.

[Coleman]

You can't go into places like Somalia to give food and aid with the current government in place. Many times the government has just taken the food and oppressed the helpers. If we pour money into the UN we'll see it just gets magically "lost" in all of the paper work. There have been millions upon millions of dollars that have been lost in the UN's hands (most likely just taken by leaders). If it was more responsible, I'm sure the US gov't (hell, even celebrities) would be willing to help out via the UN route.

[Stammer]

Originally Posted by Coleman

You can't go into places like Somalia

Somaliland isn't Somalia.

[img]http://www.newint.org/issue363/pics/somalilandmap.jpg[/img]

Anyway what really bothers me is that Afghanistan could have been Bush’s greatest achievement. I was so happy when I saw the people in the street cheering and dancing, and shaving their beards, and going to movies, and listening to music. Now they are regressing into a country torn apart by different warlords and opium barons. Fuck Iraq, if they wanted Freedom and wanted to topple Saddam they should do it themselves just like the French and the Russians did with their Czars, and Kings.

The whole point of Revolution is that it’s done by the people who want change, not by another government who has some bullshit agenda. Afghanistan was the only war I supported Bush on and at first it looked like the Afghanis was going somewhere, but the lack of caring and funding is now taking its price on them and their patience. If you’ve read lately that IEDs are turning up there now as well.

[Pyro]

Interesting article.

I don't see why democrats and republicans hate each other so much...they're all americans aren't they?

Anyways kinda reminds me of the bullshit I read about catholics not wanting protestants to exist back in the day.

[BeanerMan]

Originally Posted by Stammer

Anyway what really bothers me is that Afghanistan could have been Bush’s greatest achievement. I was so happy when I saw the people in the street cheering and dancing, and shaving their beards, and going to movies, and listening to music. Now they are regressing into a country torn apart by different warlords and opium barons. Fuck Iraq, if they wanted Freedom and wanted to topple Saddam they should do it themselves just like the French and the Russians did with their Czars, and Kings.

The whole point of Revolution is that it’s done by the people who want change, not by another government who has some bullshit agenda. Afghanistan was the only war I supported Bush on and at first it looked like the Afghanis was going somewhere, but the lack of caring and funding is now taking its price on them and their patience. If you’ve read lately that IEDs are turning up there now as well.